Jeepster80125

Some people think that you should never go bankrupt from medical bills. I would imagine that those people would never agree to this. But, it's exactly what would solve a lot of the problems we have. Then, we need to address costs by increasing transparency, removing things like the AMA and other roadblocks to success, remove the monopoly that hospitals have. We need major tort reform (sorry cane), and doctors need to stop practicing defensive medicine. It's insane the way you are treated by some providers.

I can't speak for Florida, so I'm going to assume for a second that Florida's rules mirror Colorado's.Before obamacare, you still have access to coverage, even with your pre-existing condition. The easiest way for you to get affordable coverage with your preex is to have an employer pay for it with a group plan that's guaranteed issue, where the employer is required to contribute in some form. The next way to get covered affordable is an individual plan, but you wouldn't qualify since they do medical underwriting. So that's out. Now let's say you lose coverage at your job for whatever reason I

I think you can buy the sheets of glow-in-the-dark material and make your own. Use a hole punch for generic stars and cut out bigger ones.

Right now, there are two crises in our healthcare system. Access and cost. Healthcare reform/obamacare does a little to address access, but it adds a new crisis, one of quality.We're going to start seeing people unhappy with the plans they have. If carriers can't increase rates, they'll drop benefits. There are only so many special state mandates that states can require insurance carriers to cover.There are tons of examples of how healthcare reform creates rules that are meant to screw carriers. Right now, summary documents for insurance plans run 10-15 pages, and these documents explain every

It's complex, and you never engaged me with your post on why health care is so expensive for old people.I'll give you a short version now, but feel free to ask me to explain any part of what I'm about to post.When I say obamacare, I am specifically referring to the parts of it that will ensure the destruction of insurance companies as we know them. I won't bother with sources unless you ask. I might be off on some small details but I know I'm right in general.This starts with limiting profit margins via the medical loss ratio. Do you understand that insurance companies already have small profi

She is isolated from general population, she's got full access to commissary and her favorite prescription drugs. How tough could 13 days with the lights on be?I might feel bad if she was at least in general population.

lol

If it doesn't happen before 2014, then health insurance companies will absolutely be 'bailed out' when they become unprofitable, which will happen sooner rather than later depending on how many people enroll in obamacare. Despite cain's wishes, health insurance companies employ too many people and there are too many unions (kaiser) involved for them to go under. imo.

I am totally okay with this.

You are seriously considering taking possession of guns with questionable histories which you presumably will never register?

I'm wondering why that image says OCC = Official Obama Criticizer. Shouldn't it be OOC?Maybe I'm missing something because I'm reverse rascist or something?

I wish you spoke human.

Does that mean you're going to stop posting here?

This is just so fucking weird.Luke 7:12?Mark 9:13?

I can relate to a lot of your addiction/alcohol/being in the system issues, and I wish you the best moving forward. I don't know anything to suggest except that at some probation/parole offices, if you know the right people, you can have your drug tests be unmonitored. Drug tests in colorado are monitored if you're on probation or parole, meaning they stand behind you with a mirror. However, if you are taking a drug test for an employer etc, they can't monitor you, so using fake urine is a possibility. I'm sure you know this, so feel free to insult me accordingly.

bg, you so crazy.

I wouldn't open one, I always heard that 90% fail in the first three years, 80% of the rest are gone within 5 years. [citation needed]

Yeah, the whole thing is confusing. Either both could be lying, both could be telling the truth, or some combination. It seems odd that people spend the time to figure this stuff out. This story wouldn't be nearly as interesting, in my opinion, if the exec gave away or sold the 'secrets'. But it turns out the show just got lazy, like press your luck did. It's interesting to me the different takes on it from barker and carey.or something.

If you want to go beyond cato and discuss healthcare reform, I'm all for that.I don't recall anyone asking me where I stand on any certain issue, so I'm not sure why you assume I wouldn't be supportive of reform. So no, we certainly can't agree on that.I'm not intimately familiar with the agenda of those at CATO, but their analysis of this reform bill is pretty good in my opinion. I haven't seen anything that tells me otherwise. Regarding me not supporting 'government intervention in healthcare or any program that increases the size...', that's just untrue, and it makes me wonder whether you e

Re: CATO's credibility as a source:I'll take a portion of the CATO study and re-post it here. Sorry for the formatting, I'm copy/pasting from a pdf.Interestingly, the law may have created theworst of both worlds, a mandate that is costlyand violates individual liberty, but one thatis still weak enough that it may be cheaperfor many individuals to pay the penalty thanto purchase insurance. As a result it may fallfar short of its proponents’ goal of bringingyoung and healthy individuals, who todayfrequently forego insurance, into the insurancepool. The Congressional Budget Office,in fact, estima

That's pretty JJJ-like of you, very impressive.edit: that's almost as awesome as when bigd had that great sig pic of world famous stuntman scott roland for a time.

That was my point, it's difficult to criticize it without reading it. I didn't read every word yet either, I work too. But, it's obvious that you are speaking on the source, not the content. hugs? Okay, I get that you disagree with the source but have no comment on the content. I disagree with your disagreement, I think the study points out some very real problems associated with this piece of legislation, it's not just talking points. I'd be happy to get into it more, but I doubt you care enough to get into it much further. Obviously we aren't going to agree on much. I'm curious what you mean

While both of you criticize the source, neither of you say why it's wrong, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading or without credibility. If this study can be so easily refuted, please spend the 5 seconds on google to present something to the contrary. Did either of you actually read the link? I doubt it, since the pdf is sixty some pages.Here is the intro: I'm not saying this study is perfect, but you can't really criticize it without reading it. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

You're saying this show is ' like the first season or two of seinfeld'?I didn't watch much seinfeld though.

Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry that I didn't post a full explanation of why I posted it here or what my opinion is on this story, I hate to be a hypocrite.